G.A.L. Burgeon, the narrator of Owen Barfield's novel Worlds Apart, gives a great (although partial) critique of the "only a specialist in TK should write about TK or review a book about TK" attitude so prevalent in mainstream - and mostly Liberal - publications. My own non-finito thoughts on the subject emphasize something like opsis - you can't see the pyramid while you're on top of it - but Burgeon's take is a bit more interesting in that it even more strongly suggests a comprehensive and cohesive larger reality:

"What struck me so forcibly, and not for the first time [while reading reviews in the Times Literary Supplement], was that a new book on any subject - history, science, philosophy, religion, what have you - is always dealt with by a specialist in that subject. This may be fairest from the author's point of view, but it conveys a disagreeable impression of watertight compartments. The trouble was this. Behind each review there lay a whole network of unspoken assumptions about the nature of life and the universe which were completely incompatible with the corresponding network behind the review on the next page. It was obvious for instance that for both the reviewer and the author of the book on Psycho-Social History and the Unconscious took for granted was a tissue of exploded fantasy...It wasn't that people can think at once confidently and oppositely about almost everything that matters - thought that, too, can sometimes be a sobering reflection. It wasn't that they disagreed. I wished they did. What was biting was the fact that these minds never met at all.